CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrell v. Stram

Plaintiffs and defendants, neighboring lakefront property owners in Broome County, engaged in construction work near Oquaga Lake. Plaintiffs accused defendants of negligence, trespass, and nuisance, claiming their activities increased lake turbidity. A jury ruled in favor of defendants on the negligence claim, and the Supreme Court dismissed the trespass and nuisance claims. Plaintiffs appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no compelling evidence to overturn the jury's negligence verdict and upholding the dismissal of trespass and nuisance due to a lack of intent.

Lakefront property disputeconstruction workenvironmental impactlake turbiditynegligence claimtrespass claimnuisance claimjury verdictappeal decisionevidentiary review
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03092 [238 AD3d 1088]
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Shimunov v. Ashirov

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the defendants, their neighbors, to recover damages for property injury stemming from renovation work on the defendants' property. The allegations included redirected storm water causing flooding and the construction of an encroaching stone wall. The complaint sought damages under theories of negligence, nuisance, and trespass, along with permanent injunctive relief. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the negligence and trespass claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the property owners controlled their contractors' work for negligence liability and whether they directed the trespass.

Independent Contractor LiabilityNegligenceTrespassProperty DamageSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewNondelegable DutyEmployer-Employee RelationshipAdjoining LandownersConstruction Work
References
19
Case No. 570244/13
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2016

People v. Sylvester (Sean)

This case involves consolidated criminal prosecutions where defendant Sean Sylvester appealed from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, rendered March 6, 2013, convicting him of disorderly conduct and trespass. The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed the judgments of conviction. The court found that the accusatory instruments were not jurisdictionally defective, sufficiently alleging that the defendant had no legitimate purpose in a store, refused to leave when asked by workers, and began fighting, thereby establishing reasonable cause for disorderly conduct and trespass. The public dimension of the disorderly conduct was inferable from the commercial establishment setting, and the "remains unlawfully" element of trespass was established by allegations that the defendant defied a lawful order to leave.

Criminal LawDisorderly ConductTrespassAppellate ReviewJurisdictional DefectAccusatory InstrumentSufficiency of EvidencePublic DisorderUnlawful EntryCriminal Procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Katakam

The defendant, a former computer consultant, was indicted on multiple computer crime charges for copying proprietary script files from Goldman Sachs before joining J.P. Morgan. The court considered motions to dismiss the indictment, evaluating the sufficiency of evidence for unlawful duplication of computer-related material, criminal possession, and computer trespass under Penal Law article 156. While finding insufficient evidence for computer trespass and one count of unlawful duplication due to the lack of unauthorized access or intent to commit trespass, the court upheld charges for unlawful duplication (based on economic value) and criminal possession. The judge denied the motion to dismiss in furtherance of justice, emphasizing the societal need to deter computer crime despite the defendant's personal consequences.

computer crimeunlawful duplicationcriminal possessioncomputer trespassindictmentPenal LawGrand Juryproprietary softwareGoldman SachsJ.P. Morgan
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgher v. AF III Properties, LLC

Plaintiffs, who operate an automotive repair shop adjacent to defendant's shopping center, commenced an action alleging that defendant's property improvements (repaving a driveway and repairing a roof) diverted surface water onto their property, causing damage and interfering with their right-of-way. They also claimed trespass. Plaintiffs sought money damages, an alteration of defendant's drainage system, and a declaration of a perpetual prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court granted a prescriptive easement but otherwise denied summary judgment on the water diversion and trespass claims due to unresolved factual issues. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that questions of fact existed regarding whether artificial means were used to divert water and whether defendant directed workers to trespass on plaintiffs' property.

Property disputeRight-of-wayPrescriptive easementSurface water diversionTrespassSummary judgmentAppellate reviewReal propertyLand useDrainage
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Williams

The defendant was indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminal trespass. He moved to suppress physical evidence, arguing it was unconstitutionally obtained. The court held a hearing, finding the police officer's testimony credible. Officer Murray had probable cause to arrest the defendant for criminal trespass at a fenced construction site, where the defendant was present with a coalition group known for disrupting sites. The court concluded that any alleged consent for the defendant to be on the premises was obtained through intimidation and coercion, rendering it invalid. Thus, the arrest was lawful, and the recovered vials of crack cocaine were admissible. The defendant's motion to suppress was denied.

Criminal TrespassDrug PossessionProbable CauseLawful ArrestSuppression MotionFellow Officer RuleUnlawful EntryConstruction Site DisputeCoalition Group ActivityIntimidation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McKinney

This case addresses a motion to dismiss a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespass against a union vice-president. The defendant attempted to hold a union meeting at Surfside Nursing Home, leading an administrator to file a trespass complaint. The core legal question is whether the National Labor Relations Act preempts New York State jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution. The court reviewed precedents establishing the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction over labor disputes to prevent conflicts between federal and state regulation. Finding the state prosecution inextricably intertwined with an unfair labor practice charge filed with the NLRB, the court stayed the prosecution pending a decision by an impartial administrator.

Criminal TrespassLabor Law PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActState JurisdictionUnion ActivitiesCollective BargainingMotion to DismissUnfair Labor PracticesNLRB JurisdictionFederal Preemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2009

Downs v. Town of Guilderland

This case concerns a plaintiff's appeal from a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendants, dismissing his complaint. The plaintiff alleged false arrest and free speech violations under the NY Constitution, article I, § 8, after he was arrested for trespass at Crossgates Mall for refusing to remove an "antiwar T-shirt" or leave the premises. The defendants included the mall owners (Pyramid Crossgates Company and Pyramid Management Group, Inc.), the Town of Guilderland, and a police officer (Adam Myers). The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate significant state action required for a free speech claim on private property, and that the police officer had probable cause to effectuate the trespass arrest.

Free SpeechFalse ArrestTrespassState Action DoctrinePrivate Property RightsShopping MallConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProbable Cause
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Proctor Paint & Varnish Co.

The dissenting opinion argues against an extension of landowner liability for injuries sustained by trespassing children. It contends that the occupant's conduct in managing drippings from a fill pipe was reasonable, even if children misused the facilities. Citing previous cases like Cuevas and Conway, the dissent asserts that landowners should not be held liable merely because children trespass and engage in self-injurious mischief, especially when a balance of convenience between risk and reasonable use of premises should be considered. The dissent highlights that the children entered by climbing over a wall on a Sunday when the plant was unattended, and there were no prior incidents of children playing with fire. Furthermore, it emphasizes that a 12-year-old child, as the infant plaintiff, should understand the inherent dangers of fire, referencing the Restatement, 2d, Torts.

Trespasser liabilityattractive nuisance doctrinelandowner dutychild injurydissenting opinionreasonable use of landforeseeability of harmpremises liabilityunattended propertyfire hazard
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirby v. Dubinsky

The case addresses a motion to dismiss a complaint filed against David Dubinsky, president of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and employee Thomas Bradley, for alleged trespass and destruction of property. Plaintiffs sought treble damages under Real Property Law § 534. The core legal question revolved around the liability of an unincorporated association for the intentional acts of its agents, specifically in the context of General Associations Law § 13. Citing precedents like Martin v. Curran and Torres v. Lacey, the court differentiated between intentional and unintentional wrongs. It concluded that an unincorporated association could only be held liable for an agent's intentional act, such as trespass, if all its members authorized or ratified the act. As the complaint lacked such allegations, the motion to dismiss against David Dubinsky was granted.

TrespassMotion to DismissUnincorporated AssociationAgency LawIntentional TortUnion LiabilityReal Property LawGeneral Associations LawAuthorizationRatification
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 63 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational